# Special COW-Budget Stabilization - April 28, 2022 > Auto-transcribed civic record · April 28, 2022 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/5562 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/5562?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2022-04-28 - **Last revised**: April 28, 2022 - **Length**: 14,584 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed with OpenAI's open-source Whisper large-v3-turbo model, run locally by The Lexington Times. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude. Verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Lexington-Fayette Urban County Council met on April 28, 2022, at 4:00 PM in the Council Chamber, with Vice Mayor Kay presiding over the session. The meeting focused entirely on informational presentations and discussions, with no formal votes taken during the proceedings. Council members received briefings on 10 different agenda items covering a wide range of municipal priorities and budget considerations. The informational session addressed several key areas of city operations and planning, including housing stabilization and energy efficiency initiatives, budget stabilization fund usage for FY23 bonding, and a $2 million allocation for paving projects. Infrastructure and development topics featured prominently, with discussions on the High Street entrance to Town Branch Park, a sports complex project, and the Versailles Road improvement project. Public safety matters were also covered through presentations on crime prevention through environmental design lighting suggestions and retention pay for public safety employees. Additional agenda items included funding considerations for cultural and educational institutions, specifically a one-time gift to The Arboretum of Kentucky and an allocation to the Lexington History Museum. No public comments were recorded during this meeting, indicating the session was primarily focused on internal council business and staff presentations. The meeting served as an informational work session, allowing council members to receive updates and discuss various municipal projects and budget items without taking formal action. ## Attendance All council members were present for the April 28, 2022 meeting. **Present:** • Vice Mayor Kay • Council Member F. Brown • Council Member Ellinger • Council Member LeGris • Council Member Reynolds • Council Member Lamb • Council Member Moloney • Council Member Bledsoe • Council Member J. Brown • Council Member Plomin • Council Member McCurn **Absent:** None **Late:** None The meeting achieved full attendance with all eleven council members participating. ## Contested Items Two major infrastructure projects generated heated discussions during the April 28, 2022 meeting, with council members expressing strong disagreements about priorities and safety concerns. **High Street Entrance to Town Branch Park** A significant debate arose regarding the proposed entrance to Town Branch Park from High Street. Council members raised concerns about prioritizing park access improvements while leaving existing safety hazards unaddressed. The primary point of contention centered on a dangerous curve on High Street that some members argued posed immediate safety risks to residents and visitors. Critics questioned whether resources should be allocated to creating a new park entrance when the existing roadway infrastructure presented ongoing safety challenges that required attention first. **Versailles Road Improvement Project** The Versailles Road improvement project sparked extensive discussion among council members, with the conversation focusing heavily on the project's significance and the urgent need for proper funding prioritization. The debate revealed differing opinions on how to approach the project's implementation and whether it should take precedence over other infrastructure needs in the community. Council members emphasized the importance of the Versailles Road improvements, but disagreed on the timeline and funding mechanisms necessary to move the project forward effectively. Both contested items highlighted broader tensions within the council regarding infrastructure priorities, safety considerations, and resource allocation. The discussions demonstrated the challenge of balancing immediate safety concerns with long-term development goals, particularly when funding constraints require difficult choices between competing municipal needs. The heated nature of these debates suggests these infrastructure decisions will likely require additional meetings and further deliberation before reaching resolution. *Note: Specific timestamp information and participant names were not available in the provided meeting data.* ## Housing Stabilization/Energy Efficiency [timestamp: 00:00] Vice Mayor Kay presented a comprehensive proposal for housing stabilization and energy efficiency during the meeting. The initiative targets low-income homeowners and aims to create jobs while improving energy efficiency in residential properties. The proposal centers on two main components: weatherization services and solar rooftop installation. These improvements are designed to help stabilize housing costs for low-income residents by reducing energy expenses while simultaneously creating employment opportunities in the community. Vice Mayor Kay outlined how the program would provide weatherization services to qualifying homeowners, which typically includes improvements such as insulation, air sealing, and heating system upgrades. The solar rooftop installation component would further reduce energy costs for participating households while contributing to renewable energy goals. The presentation emphasized the dual benefits of the program - providing direct assistance to low-income homeowners struggling with housing costs while generating local job opportunities in the growing green energy sector. The weatherization and solar installation work would require skilled labor, potentially creating sustained employment for community members. This agenda item was presented for informational purposes, with Vice Mayor Kay providing details about the program's structure and intended outcomes. The proposal represents an approach to addressing housing affordability challenges through energy efficiency improvements rather than traditional housing assistance programs. The initiative aligns housing stabilization goals with environmental objectives, offering a pathway for low-income homeowners to reduce their ongoing housing costs through decreased utility bills while contributing to broader community sustainability efforts. ## Use budget stabilization funds for the FY23 bonding amount [timestamp: 00:00] Council Member F. Brown presented a proposal to utilize budget stabilization funds to cover the FY23 bonding amount during this informational agenda item. The presentation focused on the strategic use of available stabilization funds as an alternative financing mechanism for the upcoming fiscal year's capital bonding requirements. Brown emphasized two primary objectives behind this proposal: • Reducing the municipality's overall debt burden • Ensuring adequate funding for necessary capital items The council member outlined how tapping into budget stabilization funds could provide immediate financial relief while maintaining the city's ability to fund essential capital projects without increasing long-term debt obligations. This approach would allow the municipality to avoid additional bonding costs and interest payments associated with traditional debt financing. The presentation was delivered as an informational item, meaning no formal action was taken during this meeting. The proposal serves as a foundation for future budget discussions and decision-making regarding the FY23 capital financing strategy. By proposing the use of stabilization funds, Brown highlighted the importance of leveraging existing financial reserves to maintain fiscal responsibility while meeting infrastructure and capital improvement needs. This approach represents a conservative fiscal strategy that prioritizes debt reduction while ensuring continued investment in municipal assets and services. The agenda item concluded without formal debate or voting, as it was structured as a presentation to inform council members about this potential financing option for consideration in upcoming budget deliberations. ## Utilize $2M for paving [timestamp: 00:00] Council Member F. Brown presented a proposal to allocate $2 million for paving projects during the meeting. The recommendation was positioned as part of the city's effort to meet its previously established annual paving goal of $15 million. Brown emphasized that this $2 million allocation would help the city stay on track with its commitment to invest $15 million annually in paving infrastructure. The proposal was presented as an informational item, providing council members with details on how these funds could be utilized to address the city's ongoing paving needs. The agenda item was structured as a presentation, with Council Member Brown serving as the primary speaker outlining the paving allocation proposal. No specific concerns or opposition were noted during the discussion of this item. The outcome was informational, meaning the presentation served to inform council members about the proposed use of funds rather than requiring immediate action or a formal vote. This suggests the item may have been part of broader budget discussions or preliminary planning for upcoming paving projects. The $2 million allocation represents a significant portion of the city's annual $15 million paving commitment, indicating the substantial investment required to maintain and improve the city's road infrastructure. ## High Street entrance to Town Branch Park [timestamp: 00:00] Council Member Ellinger presented agenda item 4 regarding funding for the High Street entrance to Town Branch Park. The presentation focused on the project's potential to transform the downtown area and addressed various safety concerns associated with the proposed entrance. During the discussion, Council Member Ellinger emphasized the transformative impact this entrance could have on downtown Lexington, highlighting how it would improve connectivity between the urban core and the park system. The presentation outlined the funding requirements and implementation timeline for the High Street entrance project. Safety concerns were a significant component of the discussion, with Council Member Ellinger addressing how the new entrance would be designed and managed to ensure public safety while providing improved access to Town Branch Park. The presentation covered various aspects of the entrance design and its integration with existing downtown infrastructure. This was an informational presentation, with no formal action taken by the council during this agenda item. The discussion served to update council members and the public on the current status of planning and funding efforts for the High Street entrance to Town Branch Park. The presentation provided council members with details about the project's scope, anticipated benefits for downtown revitalization, and the measures being considered to address safety and accessibility concerns related to the new park entrance. ## Sports Complex Council Member Ellinger and Council Member Bledsoe presented a proposal for a sports complex through a public-private partnership during agenda item 5 [timestamp: 00:00]. The presentation focused on developing a facility that would provide green space specifically dedicated to youth sports activities. The council members outlined their vision for the sports complex as a collaborative effort between the city and private partners. The primary emphasis of their proposal centered on addressing the need for additional recreational facilities and green space that would serve the community's youth sports programs. This agenda item was presented as an informational session, allowing the council members to share their initial concepts and framework for the proposed sports complex. The public-private partnership model was highlighted as the preferred approach for developing and potentially funding the facility. No specific concerns or opposition were noted during this presentation, as it served as an introductory discussion of the sports complex concept. The outcome was informational, meaning no formal action was taken during this meeting, but the presentation established the groundwork for future consideration and development of the proposal. The sports complex proposal represents an effort to expand recreational opportunities for young residents while utilizing a partnership model that could leverage both public resources and private investment to create new community amenities focused on youth athletics and outdoor activities. ## Crime prevention through environmental design lighting suggestions [timestamp: 00:00] Council Member LeGris presented lighting recommendations for the downtown entertainment district aimed at enhancing public safety through improved illumination. The presentation was based on collaborative input from both the police department and parks department, reflecting a coordinated approach to crime prevention through environmental design. The agenda item focused specifically on lighting solutions that could reduce criminal activity and improve overall safety conditions in the downtown entertainment area. Council Member LeGris served as the primary presenter, drawing from departmental expertise to outline suggested improvements to the existing lighting infrastructure. This presentation represented an informational session, with no formal action taken during the meeting. The recommendations appear to be part of a broader crime prevention strategy that utilizes environmental modifications, particularly enhanced lighting, to deter criminal behavior and create safer public spaces. The involvement of both police and parks departments in developing these suggestions indicates a comprehensive approach to public safety that considers both law enforcement perspectives and recreational facility management expertise. The focus on the downtown entertainment district suggests recognition of this area as a priority location for safety improvements. No specific details about the lighting recommendations, implementation timelines, or budget considerations were captured in the available meeting data. The item served as an informational presentation to keep council members informed about ongoing safety enhancement efforts in the downtown area. ## Versailles Road improvement project [timestamp: 00:00] Council Member Reynolds presented information on the Versailles Road improvement project during this agenda item. The discussion focused on the design and funding requirements for improvements to this major transportation corridor. Reynolds emphasized the significance of Versailles Road as an important thoroughfare for the community, highlighting the need for infrastructure enhancements along this route. The presentation covered the project's design elements and outlined the funding needs that would be required to move forward with the planned improvements. This agenda item served as an informational presentation to update the council and public on the current status of the Versailles Road project. No formal action was taken during this discussion, as the item was presented for informational purposes only. The presentation provided council members and attendees with details about the scope and financial requirements of the proposed road improvements, allowing for better understanding of this infrastructure initiative that affects a key corridor in the area. ## One-time gift to The Arboretum of KY [timestamp: 00:00] Council Member Lamb presented a proposal for a one-time gift to The Arboretum of Kentucky to support the renovation and expansion of the Dorothea Oatts Visitor Center. The presentation was informational in nature, with Council Member Lamb serving as the primary speaker on this agenda item. The proposed gift would contribute to improvements at the visitor center facility at The Arboretum of Kentucky. No specific dollar amount or additional details about the scope of the renovation and expansion project were provided in the available meeting materials. The item was presented for the council's consideration as part of the meeting's agenda. This agenda item concluded as an informational presentation without any formal action taken during the meeting. ## Allocation to the Lexington History Museum Council Member Lamb presented information regarding funding allocation for the Lexington History Museum during this agenda item [timestamp: 00:00]. The presentation focused on providing financial support to help the museum with several key operational areas. The proposed funding would support three primary functions for the Lexington History Museum: • Management operations and administrative needs • Identification and securing of an appropriate location for the museum • Development of educational and community programs Council Member Lamb served as the primary speaker for this agenda item, outlining the museum's funding requirements and how the allocation would be utilized to advance the institution's mission in the community. This was presented as an informational item to the council, providing members with details about the museum's needs and the proposed use of municipal funds. The presentation allowed council members to understand how the allocation would contribute to establishing and maintaining historical preservation and educational services in Lexington. No specific funding amount or timeline details were captured in the available meeting data. The item concluded as an informational presentation without requiring immediate council action or voting. ## Retention pay for public safety employees [timestamp: 00:00] Council Member Moloney presented a proposal to allocate funds for retention pay to public safety employees during this informational agenda item. The presentation addressed ongoing staffing shortages within the city's public safety departments. The proposal was presented as a potential solution to help retain current public safety personnel amid recruitment and retention challenges facing the departments. Council Member Moloney outlined the need for additional compensation measures to maintain adequate staffing levels in critical public safety roles. This agenda item was designated as a presentation for informational purposes, with no formal action taken during the meeting. The discussion provided council members with details about the retention pay proposal and its potential impact on addressing staffing concerns within public safety operations. The item concluded without a formal vote or decision, serving as an informational briefing for the council to consider the proposal's merits and potential implementation in future deliberations. --- ## Full transcript Promise you'll always be there I'm giving you an F I'm giving you an F Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. We'll be right back. Good afternoon. Good afternoon everybody and welcome. It's April 28th, Committee of the Whole on budget stabilization funds. And while people are finding their seats, I'll just say a word or two about my understanding of how council wishes to proceed. And that is to hear in the order in which they are in our packet of presentations, up to five minutes each for the projects that are on the list. And then an opportunity for each presentation for council members to ask clarifying questions. It's also my understanding that the council's preference is to hold specific motions until we have come closer to the end of the entire budget process. But as usual, council members have the ability to make motions at any time, should they so choose. So having said that, is there anything at all, council members, before we begin? Seeing none, the first item on the agenda happens to be a project that I have proposed. And so I would ask council member Maloney, if you wouldn't mind, please, taking the chair. I'd like to be recognized. Sure, go ahead. Okay, if we can get that set of slides up please. Just, okay, it's housing stabilization and energy efficiency, and next slide. So a reminder about the impact. This is a project that's been carried over from the initial conversation about the ARPA funds. So it really is responsive to the criteria and the stated priorities that were included in the entire process. And it is also responsive to recommendations from the task force on neighborhoods in transition, and from the mayor's commission on racial justice and equity. And it's got really three related parts, direct benefit to low income homeowners, job creation and entrepreneurship, and energy efficiency. Next slide. So the project elements, housing stabilization, this approach to it is one of the few tools we have that actually would mitigate market forces for gentrification. That as we know are kind of moving forward in our community. And for some people, it's basically forcing them out of their traditional neighborhoods. So this would help to stabilize some of the older and more traditional neighborhoods in our community. And second part of the project is the reduction in our carbon footprint. So many communities around the country have instituted many projects related to energy efficiency and reducing our carbon footprint. We're, I think it's fair to say, we're behind the curve on that. This is one way that we can begin to address that particular issue. Next slide, please. An additional element is job training. So as envisioned, there would be a program for providing stipends to people who get paid to participate in the work being done and get trained in both weatherization and solar rooftop installation. And both of those, but especially the solar rooftop, is an expanding sector of the economy. And it's a place where there are jobs. And in fact, kind of a difficulty sometimes finding people. And also training for entrepreneurs. So this is something that has been done at some scale by other entities in the community. But this would be an opportunity for budding entrepreneurs to participate. Next slide please. So the structure would be relatively simple. There would be a grant to United Way and they would be responsible for overseeing the entire project. And there would be a set of sub-grantees indicated in that grant. Next slide, please. The heart of the proposal is, as you see on the screen, for up to 200 households, low income households, a grant that would provide for them weatherization and solar rooftop installation. The solar installation management would be by United Way. The job training, which would be related to the entire project, would be overseen by the Building Industries Association, which has experience at doing exactly that kind of work, training in the trades. Next slide, please. The entrepreneurship program would be overseen by the Urban League, which, again, has experience in assisting people with developing entrepreneurship skills. And the weatherization program would be managed by Community Action, which has a long history of doing exactly that in the community. And finally, education outreach by Bluegrass Green Source on contract. Next slide please. Estimated cost, roughly 25,000 per household. That would allow us to do a couple hundred homes. The administration and stipend $675,000 for a total cost $5.675 million. And next slide. There is not. So I thought we had a question slide, but we don't. So I will stop there and entertain questions. Thank you. Is there any questions? I don't see any. Vice Mayor, you can have this. Hold it. Council Member Brown. Sorry about chiming in late. Thank you, Council Member. Vice Mayor, I've heard some concerns about this program in some of these solar panels being installed on houses that may not be able to retain or appreciate in line with the value of the investment of this project. What mechanisms are in place to ensure that that doesn't become an issue or is not a concern for this project? Well, I would start with the analysis of homes that would be eligible. They would have to meet a certain set of standards about their suitability, certainly for rooftop installation. Community action has its own set of criteria for the weatherization and whether a particular housing unit would, first of all, would benefit from it. And secondly, is the structure sound enough to be able to actually benefit from that? So the same set of analysis would be applied to any individual structure. And we would want to make sure that this is, first of all, something that structurally could be done. And secondly, would in fact make enough of a difference for that household. So I guess the short answer is those criteria would need to be worked out by the people who have that expertise. Okay. All right, I appreciate that answer. And then I got another question, and it's in regards to the concern, and you might have addressed it in your presentation, that the potential of using government money to improve a property to be sold later for a gain. Is there any kind of deed restrictions or any kind of mechanism that's going to prevent that from happening and so this program can actually address the intent of it? Yes. Some preliminary thinking has been done about that. But I want to emphasize that until we get to the point of actually working out the details of the program, we want to make sure that the criteria are both adequate to protect the city's investment, and not such that they would prevent homeowners from being willing to participate. So some initial thoughts, that the resident would be owner-occupied property for at least the last ten years, so they have been in the neighborhood and they would continue to be in the neighborhood, that they be within the ARPA designated census tracts. And again, those are similar to what the task force on neighborhoods in transition indicated. The family income at 80% of AMI, every immediate income or less. The net worth excluding the home value of $50,000 or less. And then an agreement stipulating a pro rata reimbursement to LFUCG at 20% of cost per year. If there is a sale of the property so that we could recoup. And again, those as an initial thought are very similar to the ways in which the Affordable Housing Fund sets up its agreements when it funds essentially private capital in producing affordable housing units. Okay, thank you for that, that's all I have. Thank you. Councilman Plowman. Thank you. Vice Mayor, I wanted to check, are there other markets that have a similar model that you've looked at? Not that I know. I think it's the combination of housing stabilization and energy efficiency is a little bit unusual. I was wondering just because there's probably other resources too that might exist out there. I think of infrastructure that's coming down the pike, grants because of the type of project it is, that might help in that total cost. I mean, I like the project, but I think there's probably some potential out there for some other funding sources in addition to what we support. And there might be. And for what it's worth, my thought about that is that right now, the target is a couple hundred units. And I know that some people have concerns about the scale. And I think there's an opportunity to scale it down some, but at a certain point you lose efficiency. But my thought is, we get this up and running. If other funds become available, then we could do more housing. There's not a lack of housing units that would benefit from this. That's not at issue, but yes, we would be looking at more. And I think with the addition of the sustainability coordinator to our staff, there's someone who's in a position to investigate that further. Okay, great, thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you, Council Member Mullaney. Council Member Allard, thank you, Chair. I might have missed this, but could you talk about what else is going to help the houses to winterize them on when they have this to make sure that they don't lose the efficiency? That would be the responsibility of the Community Action Council, which has had for many years a weatherization program. And so they do, my understanding is they analyze the structure. They see if it's sound enough to benefit from a set of improvements, and then they contract with appropriate folks to do that work. And this would be similar. This would not be a grant to a household to go out and do this work. This would be an opportunity to have this, it would be a consortium, to come in to analyze what could be done to then provide the appropriate weatherization and the appropriate solar installation. So with the $25,000 per household, would that be for everything then, not just for the solar, but for winterization also? Yeah, and that, again, I've talked to a few people in the industry. As a rough figure, they think that's reasonable. There'll be some, obviously, that might be less. Some might be a little more, but that would be within the range. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Council Member will agree. Thank you, Chair. Vice Mayor Kay, I just wanted to share that I appreciate all of the creativity that's gone into this project. I think that you've brought together an ambitious number of elements with workforce development, weatherization, efficiency, and housing stability. and you since we last spoke about this as a group it sounds like you've taken some time to work through and share some of those details that we had questions about and to reconsider the scale so i just wanted to thank you for that and that's all that's my comment thank you no other questions vice mayor have one question uh we do a lot of cdbg projects and we had a presentation that we only did six and we've got enough money to do a lot more. We weren't able to get a lot of people to build houses and put them up to code. I was wondering why we try a pilot program for about $150,000 set aside with the CDBG projects so we can do at least three or four of these houses starting out as a trial project. And if it works for the next few years, then we come back and look at something like this. Because, I mean, they're already out there trying to fix these houses. And if we put this weatherization in there and put it in with CDBG, we can see a pilot program to make this work for these low income families, especially energy is cost. Have you looked, have we tried to look at that before, have talked with Charlie to see if we can use some of that money to help? I have not. My sense was that this would be a project in addition to whatever else the city is able to do. Again, I don't think there's any lack of need. And if there's additional CDBG money that's available, that'd be great. Okay, any more questions? Vice Mayor, you can have the Chair back. Thank you. Thank you, and now I'll take the Chair back. Next is Council Member Fred Brown. Thank you Vice Mayor. I put a handout and that's basically the information, it's pretty concise. I think everyone knows my feeling about bonding. And the bonding of 15,230,000, that was on our list when we were talking about ARPA money. And it fell through that it didn't qualify or we didn't use it for ARPA. And it consisted of the police fleet, 3.5 million, GS fleet of 3 million, fire fleet of 6 million one, police annex headquarters, million five, and assault barn of million one. And that makes up the 15,230,000. And the mayor included that in the bonding program. And I just felt like if we had some extra cash for these capital items, that we ought to use it to reduce our bonding and to possibly fund these items. Now, having said that, there's three, five items on there, and we really haven't talked about those in links, but we will, because most of those are in public safety, and I'm not sure we're even dealing with that volume of dollars. but that was what was presented and it just kind of fell through the cracks, but the mayor picked it up as a bonding item into her new bond. So I wanted to address the fact that this budget stabilization funds that we have are basically a savings account where it would be wise to pay off debt or buy things that we have to in a capital and non-reoccurring expense. So that was my position on that. I've got another item, but if anybody's got any questions on that, I think it's self-explanatory. Do you want to proceed to take questions on that particular item? If anybody's got a question, I think everybody understands. Questions on that first item? I see nobody signed in. You may proceed. Yeah. And then the other item I have is to utilize 2 million in our savings for another item that's under the bonding. No, I'm sorry. Another 2 million. And this is not bonding. This is just the ability to do more paving using our money that's in savings. the $2 million in the budget, there's a $13 million figure. The $2 million that I allude to really brings it up to $15 million. And for most council members that weren't here in 2016, we had a resolution that was passed by this council then that we would spend, put in our payment plan, $15 million each year. We have never done that since 2016. And in fact, during the pandemic, we went down to $8 million one year and $5 million another year. So we are far behind. And if the ARPA money was supposed to be used for anything, it was supposed to be for relief of where we lost money during the pandemic. So we lost probably a year's paving in the pandemic. But we didn't use any of the ARPA money. didn't try to use it so this year under the budget of 13 million which is going to be bonded i'm sorry 9.5 is going to be bonded and then we're going to be used map monies to bring it up to 13 million so having said that the 2 million would bring us up to what we should probably have we know that we can spend the 15 million based on the information that we've got from our paving contractor and also this two million i didn't catch it yet but i wanted to put it into collectors which is not residential area that each district council member is responsible for so the collectors would actually give the administration uh two million more for the collector streets that we need so that's and i'm just trying to use some of our savings for some And again, capital items and some things are not reoccurring. Thank you. Thank you. Questions, comments? Seeing none, thank you for that. Next is Council Member Ellinger. Thank you Vice Mayor. The first item I put in was the High Street entrance to the Town Branch Park, $7.5 million. I want you all to know that I've saved you all 4.3 because I'm down to 3.2. So we're starting right from saving 4.3 million. So with the park, in my opinion, this is going to be transformational for the downtown. So I want to make sure that it gets done and it gets done right. And they need insurances that when they construct it that we're going to help them get it done. So the mayor's put in $5 million into the budget right now for the raise grant. Now the issue is if we don't receive the raise grant, then what's going to happen? And actually getting the numbers back, it wasn't $5 million, it's actually $8.2 million because when they started looking at it, one issue was that the planning staff came back to them and it was initially 7.5 and it was another 700,000 to reconstruct the way that is for two-way traffic to come into the park. So it's actually 8.2 million dollars. So my suggestion would be to go ahead in case we don't get the raised grant and they use the 5 million dollars that we haven't, it's fully funded to the 8.2 so we'd put a placeholder of 3.2 million in there to make sure that this project gets done and that's about the extent of actually the city at this point we did 300 000 early on as seed money for the initial studies for the conceptual drawings and the master plan but this has been a basically a private venture and i'd like to see some private public partnership here that we work together and i've talked with council member bledsoe and we were trying to come up with a 10 percent no more than 10 percent it looks like the the whole project's going to be around 42 might even be more than that they've raised over 31 right now they've done a great job from from private financing but i think this is an opportunity that we can step in and help out some make sure that we can guarantee that they're going to have the high street issue that's on the way that the entrance is because that's big that's become an entrance they had another one initially and now we've had to change it to the high street so this would make sure that this would get done and it would be 3.2 million that we would hold as a placeholder at that i there brandy and allison are here if they have any questions any more technical questions okay any questions thank you and i guess one thing i will address is in the rate the raise grant what i've been told and brandy you can come up here and and validate this but when it was put in the five million according to the mayors if they don't get it that it was going to be used for the entrance for the high street and part of the helping out on the safety of high street but then take in all of that and i know council member reynolds it's a big issue because it's in her district and it's a safety issue yes thank you council member our intent is if the raise grant is not awarded which we hope it is because it does a lot more for us the five million would go toward improvements in the public right-of-way that are inclusive of Manchester Street, Jefferson Street, High Street, right there at the park's entrance. So there is a partnership here. The park is still paying for components that are on LCC property and the park's leased property, and we would be making improvements that work in tandem with those. So there is some shared opportunity there with infrastructure. Okay, thank you. Questions, Council Member Reynolds. Thank you, Vice Mayor, and thank you, Council Member Ellinger for bringing this forward. I'm concerned about High Street because as I've kind of adopted that as part of my district this year, the only thing I've heard from my constituents that live in that area is they're concerned for the safety of that area and that curve. And I know we're putting in some speed tables and things like that now, but it's really not enough. So when I heard the mayor mention this money the other day, to me it sounded like if we don't get the grant, then this money will go to help fix the curve and make it safer. So what I'm understanding now is that this money is for the entrance to the park and that there will be safety things around that, but it might not reach the curve. So I'm concerned about throwing or putting all of this money just to that and not addressing the curve when that's really the issue that the people around there are concerned about. And we've had, as everyone knows, multiple fatalities there. So I'm just, I guess, I would like it to be able to somehow incorporate that curve and share it not just before the entrance. And I don't know how to work that, and I know we're limited in our funds, but I just wanted to voice my concern on that. So, thank you. Thank you. Council Member Maloney. Thank you. I want to echo what Council Member Reynolds said. We originally wrote this grant the first time for that curve, and it didn't pass. And that was the reason I supported this. And I agree with her. That curve is probably the most dangerous curve here and around Luthington, and it needs to be fixed. and I too thought the $5 million, if we don't get funded, was going into that curve. And to me, I have to question what our priorities are, because safety in my book is the number one issue. And to me, if we don't get this grant, we should be putting this money into that curve. And I understand the park how important it is, but I agree with it. but when it comes to the life and safety of people, and I've seen too many people get hurt and some people die on that curb, and we know it right there and right in how bad it is, so I, too, agree with Councilman Reynolds. We've got to make sure we set our priorities right. If we don't get this grant, that money to go into that curb, I don't care what we can do, but we need to invest 100% of our time in finding a way to fit that curb. Thank you. Thank you. I see nobody else signed up to speak. Council Member Ellinger, you're going to move on to your next item. I just wanted to answer, if you don't mind, just to respond. And I agree with the safety issue, and I would ask the administration to come back, and I'm more than happy to put more in than the 3.2 to make sure that that is addressed. Because I do agree that that should be the number one issue with safety. So when we look at that five million, I think we have to look at what else we're going to need, if that doesn't come in, because 8.2 was for everything, but if we need to add another million in, I'm more than willing to make that motion to add that in. The second item that I had was, it was very detailed, it said sports complex. And if we can give him a new clock, thank you. So with that, we've been talking about, for uh... for it for quite a few months about this with i think uh... mister koi burkham from clover initially brought it up and we've talked about sports complex we know now that one of uh... uh... are and benefactors here in the community is looking at doing a a a sports uh... pro sports team and now we're looking at how can we have another private public partnership well there are three options right now there was one that's going up by rup arena and there was also another option that was going out richard road there's no one out newtown pike so there are some options that they have in we start looking how can we be partner with uh... a sports complex to make sure that we have because one thing we lack here is greenfield's green fields for kids public green spaces for sports so what i would i would recommend is that we put and initially had 10 million dollars but i've i have backed that off to either four million dollars or 10 of of the project project um that they would put in and council member bledso has worked with me on this and i'll let her kind of explain how we would go about drafting not that Not that we're going to be bringing a motion, but to let her kind of talk about how we would go forward with that. Council Member Leto, if you don't mind. Sure. Thank you, Council Member. So I'll go back to 2014 when we talked about how do we make Cardinal Run come into field space. We've talked about sports, I'll say complexes. We really just want sports fields. At the end of the day, what we have heard for the last, as long as I've been up here eight years, is we have less and less green space for kids to play soccer, lacrosse, the two largest growing sports in Fayette County that have the most competition and least amount of space. And so over the last couple years, we've kind of been looking at how do we increase more options for green space for our youth sports. So there are lots of people out there kind of talking about this. And so one of the things that we thought about was how to be a partner with somebody who wants to do that without being the owner of a large complex. But it would be something that would serve the youth in our community, which is what we would like, is field space. So the idea would be maybe something like, you want me to read what I put together? Okay. So in my, I am not an attorney. So this is just what I came up with today to try to put some meat around what I think our intent would be. Which is to reserve $4 million of budget stabilization funds and put it into an account for one time reimbursable expenses of a public infrastructure project with an emphasis on youth sports, tourism and economic development, where the public investment represents no more than 10% of the private development. In other words, while we try to figure out how this might work, allow us to have some skin in the game for public infrastructure like roads, sidewalks, curbs. Infrastructure that would help bring field space accessibility to youth in Fayette County. While we figure out how that might look moving forward. How's that? Okay. Thank you. Any questions? Council Member Lamb. Thank you and thank you for bringing this forward. I think that any time we can provide more green space for our youth and our community is a really valuable thing. I know Kirk Levington Park over in my district is highly used in lacrosse teams there and everything. I guess when you're talking about a team sport and combining that with our youth, do we have any idea how that we would be able to make sure that it is used by the youth and not just overcome by a professional team? I mean, if they're putting a lot of money in the project, I'd say that they'll probably have a lot of say-so in how the space is used, but we would want to make sure that if we're going to put public money into it or government money into it that the youth really get their opportunity to. Yes, and that's why it specifically says youth sports in that goal and objective. Because I think that's the main goal for us, is bringing field space for youth to be at. And I think if when we craft this, if it moves forward, that as a part of the reimbursal expenses, those are public goods anyway, their roads, their public accessibility, their public infrastructure for sewer. But that it would also have something in there to make sure that there be youth involved from our city in some capacity, if that makes sense. It does. Maybe ride it into it. But my intention was saying youth sports was part of that. Right. And, I mean, there's an opportunity for the professional team to work with our youth, too. I mean, you know, there's lots of opportunity here for it. Yes. But, you know, again, I would want it to be useful for all of our community and not just a certain portion, too, because that's very important to me as well, that it would be for everyone to be able to come into that park and have the same amenities as just for everyone. So I appreciate that. And I'll just piggyback on that, on that keyword opportunity. There's an opportunity here that we can partner here from the private-public partnership. They're going to do a lot of the work, but we'll have some skin in the game here, too, that's going to benefit this community for many years to come. The only other thing I would say is, and this is just funny, But let's make sure we put it in a fund and don't call it budget stabilization. Thank you. Council Member James Brown. Thank you, Vice Mayor, and thank you, Council Member Ellinger, for working with Council Member Bledsoe on this. I think, you know, before we were talking about a sports complex and $10 million. So I think reducing that amount makes me consider it even more. But what I think is important is I think soccer is a growing sport in our community. I've said it several times that I think our park and rec department needs to look at making that one of the sports that we support. And I think this could help us do that. I think if we create additional facilities for the private leagues to participate in and free up some space in our parks for more public access, I think it will give or provide us the opportunity to do that. So I see this as a potential win-win, and then also the economic development piece of it. We are doing a lot of things and investing a lot of money in making Lexington the destination. And I think this is also something else that we can do to contribute to that effort in regards to economic development. So thanks for your work on this. Thank you. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you. Council Member Plowman. Thank you, Vice Mayor, and also Council Member Bledsoe and Ellen Burbank. Thanks for bringing down the price tag substantially on this. But my question would have to do, and I know you don't name the location, but obviously the locations would be in the 12th District. So I wonder what that process looks like in choosing who's involved in that. I know this is an earmark, and there's a lot of planning that's coming in. But have you all addressed what that site selection process might look like? No, because I think there's too many variables at play that are outside the scope of this body to do so. This body that's working on it right now, not us. It's not us. And so I think what I would say, just in general, is that we didn't list a location on purpose to maintain flexibility in doing some of that. And field space right now is allowed in the 12th district. You know, you couldn't put lights on it, for instance, but they can build them right now. So in that sense, it doesn't really conflict with what, any zoning issues so far until a proposal actually came that may have something else with it. Okay. Okay. In cracking this, I'll just focus. was trying to be flexible with it. So that's the key, is to help to be ready there if they do go forward, that we're going to be ready there to partner with them. Okay, I see no one else signed up to speak. We can move on to Council Member LeGar. Council Member Worley. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Sorry I was slow to hit the button there. No, I just had a comment that kind of echoes some of what Council Member James Brown brought up an issue, which, one, the reduction of the price is certainly helpful in the rest of our discussions. But I think when this initially came up, we were talking about some sort of public investment that could incentivize and parlay off of a public investment. And this, to me, focuses that even more because it really is only an investment into public infrastructure that would facilitate this sort of investment. And I think the field, to Council Member Lamb's point, I think tying this to youth sports at whatever level will be so beneficial to our community because there's such a demand for competitive field space that it oftentimes is in conflict with recreation and family use of our park space. So kind of to what Councilman James Brown said, this sort of investment allows for more field space, more green space for our youth, but also alleviates some of the demand that are on our current parks and makes more opportunity for more people in our existing, what we already have in our capital inventory. So thank you. Thank you. Now nobody else has signed in. Council member will agree. Sorry, this microphone is kind of quiet today. Thank you so much, Vice Mayor Kaye, for the opportunity to present this. This should be a fairly straightforward presentation. As many of you all are aware, downtown business groups have been expressing their concern about downtown safety. And multiple groups have met with council members and the administration and the police to improve downtown for visitors and for patrons and for people who live and work downtown. And lighting is something that comes up frequently in these conversations. And it's something that we can easily manage to remedy. So I'm going to share a little bit about what the police have recommended for improved lighting as a method of improving safety using design elements. So if we could go to the next slide. This might not be very legible to you on this screen, but the area that's included in this crime prevention through environmental design assessment includes Tandy Park and the Fifth Third Pavilion, the Short Street area. And if you've printed this out in your packet, you may be able to see it with a bit more clarity. Next slide please. Excuse me while I turn to my own notes. So as you all will see, I mean this is basically an argumentation for why lighting matters. Lighting by itself, as you know, will not prevent crime, but it does increase a sense of safety and it creates fewer dark spaces and corners and it makes it easier for people to navigate our streets. And it allows you to see ahead of you when you're walking or biking. So what we're talking about has to do with reducing fear, and it also helps with decreasing the opportunity for criminal activity. So next slide please. Thank you. A little bit about LEDs. I'm sure people have used LED lighting in their homes, so when you look at energy reduction, this isn't surprising. But some of what we're going to talk about has to do with replacement lighting and some of it is new lighting. And that's why I bring up the benefits of LED lights. They are much brighter and they cost less money. Next slide please. So this is a little section about the replacement of lights. Part of this recommendation has to do with the process of replacement of street lights. You can see the difference here between non LED lights and LED lights. And as you can see in the remarks, KU has started the process of replacing some of the street lights organically as they go bad or burn out. But what we'd like to do is to go ahead and expedite that process and replace the remaining 44 lights on the short street upper street mill street and market street and church street areas next slide please now i'm going to get into a little bit about fifth third pavilion so i'm going to walk you through a a couple of the different recommendations that I've received from Chief Maynard, who is here to speak, and from Director Conrad, who is also here to speak, should you have questions. One of the recommendations was for better lighting surrounding the outside of the 5th Third Pavilion. And on the next slide, though I'm not ready to move on to it quite yet, you'll see a recommendation for what that could look like. We're also requesting an estimate of $1,000 for hanging lights similar to what you see on patios or on short street. They're very attractive, they're friendly, and they're a bit romantic in some ways. I only have 29 seconds left. Yikes. This is the past five minutes. Okay, I'm also requesting about $15,000 to add LED lights to provide exterior coverage. You'll see that. And then here's the big ask for about $140,000 for premium lighting upgrade for the inside and outside of the pavilion. As you all will see on pedways, do you need to interrupt me? Can you conclude briefly? Yeah, I can. If you would do that, then there are questions. Colleagues. Thank you Vice Mayor. I'd like to ask Ms. LaGreary to continue explaining. It's really quick. The $140,000. Thank you so much. I didn't know we had this five minute limit as I was kind of droning on. I wasn't keeping it in mind. So yeah, let me talk about the $140,000 for the lighting upgrade for the inside and outside of the pavilion. You all have seen in our pedways lighting that can be programmed. It's beautiful, it's friendly, it's lively, and it also helps with downtown safety. The lighting that we're requesting here could be programmed in different colors, but it could also be brighter, bright white. So it's about versatility as well as kind of design in other ways. So that's it, thank you for the extra time. You can see on the next page, next slide please, this more utilitarian lighting that I mentioned for the $15,000. And final slide, thank you. This is the total breakdown, it includes a little bit of buffer, in case we would have to do any kind of electrical wiring or update there to make sure it's all feasible. Thank you for the extra time. Thank you. We have some questions. Council Member McCurran. Thank you, Vice Mayor. All the projects that we have on this list here are great projects, and I haven't spoken about many of them. And I know we will down the road, but this one is a relatively small ask compared to several of the other ones that are on this list. And I think this is a great way to show our downtown businesses that we are trying to help improve, not just the nightlife, but the safety of the pavilion, the safety of the area. That is something in talking to many of the business owners, that is one of their key things that they see is LED lights and more lighting for parking lots, more lighting for the streets, trying to just make it more visible to everybody and safer for everyone. So I appreciate this ask coming forward and I hope that my colleagues see it the same way too. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Worley. Thank you, Vice Mayor. And my question is really intended to highlight something that Councilmember Legree presented. And she mentioned two key figures, Chief Maynard and Director Conrad, having made recommendations to this plan. And so I just wanted for everyone to point out, the question is that this recommendation comes in conjunction with recommendations from both our police department and Parks and Recreation Department. And so I think that that's a key point here, that when we look at our downtown public spaces, when we're talking about crime prevention and safety, and recreation ambiance. This covers a lot of ground here and I think is a nice and modest price compared to what we're talking about here that complements the $30,000 or so we recently approved for additional patrol downtown and in that area. So I think this is just an addition to those efforts, and I wanted to highlight that not only is it a great recommendation from the council member, but it came along with a consult from both Parks and Rec and the police. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Council Member Ellinger. Thank you Vice Mayor. I just want to piggyback what my colleagues already said about the safety issues and about with police and parks, how they've come and asked us for this. But the Downtown Lexington Partnership Board, which I'm a new member of, this is one of their big issues right now. And they really think that this is important for a safety factor and I think it would do a lot for our downtown and I'm supportive. Thank you for bringing it forward. Thank you. Council Member James Brown. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Not to sound like a broken record, but to be a broken record. I think this is a strong recommendation, and I think the fact that we have an opportunity to support those businesses in regards to that group that has been focused on downtown, I think that's something that we should do in an effort to make our downtown safe and welcoming to everyone. So thank you. Thank you, Council Member. Thank you. Council Member Reynolds. Thank you, Vice Mayor, and thank you council member lagree for this as well i think lighting is very important for safety so i i appreciate this could you just describe a little bit about the premium lighting upgrade that's 140 000 to the pavilion i mean i've been there at night before and i guess i've never thought oh man we need more lighting but i can understand why that might be an issue you know when no one's around but i was just curious great thank you thank you council member reynolds so the the lighting uh the current lighting will be reaching its end of life soon we feel it as replacements come on led is certainly the way to go this aesthetic lighting allows for instance if we're having fourth of july celebrations we can have different colors in the pavilion if we're having a breeder's cup this fall we could have different colors highlighting the pavilion for those events, as well as being able to turn those on to just bright white light for improved safety and security in the space. Okay, and does that affect street lights at all? This does not. This is just in the pavilion itself, the third pavilion. Okay, but there are some LED upgrades to street lights, right? Okay, thank you very much. You're welcome. Thank you. Thank you. I see nobody else signed in, so we'll move on to Council Member Reynolds. Thank you. I have asked Director Burton to come and do a brief presentation, and I will make some comments afterwards. Thank you. Hi, thank you. So today I want to talk to you about the sales recorder. What is it? kind of where did it start, where are we at, where are we going, and most importantly for this group, how much does it cost? Next slide, please. So what is the Versailles Road corridor? The corridor limits are from Parker's Mill to Alvar Lewis Way, and the other major roadways between the two are Mason, Heedly, and Forbes. Next slide. So the history of it is there's been several studies and plans done in the past for Charles Road multimodal alternative evaluation done in 2013, and then both the Cardinal Valley Small Area Plan and the corridor study, which is the basis of a lot of what I'm talking about today done in 15 as well. Next slide. So that was where we've kind of been. Here's where we are today. This is Sections 1 and 2. Section 1 is from Parker's Mill to Village Drive. Section 2 is from Village Drive to Mason Healy. And so this was bond-funded several years ago, and we're wrapping up construction soon. Next slide. So what are we doing there? What was the old? The old was deteriorated sidewalks that were five foot wide directly adjacent to the roadway, deteriorated curbs as well as deteriorated curb box inlets. So what have we done new? Sidewalks that are wider and move farther away from the roadway. We replaced a lot of those deteriorated components, full width paving. We added a median island to enhance that with traffic calming and entrance conflicts as well as improved aesthetic. There's retaining walls on Section 2, separated bike lanes through the entire corridor, street trees along the way. We also have some improvements with horse. There's three curved walls at Alexandria that will have the name of four prominent horses on them. So a lot of improvements to this area. Next slide. This is a visual. This was done as part of a public meeting we did several years ago. and this is the first section which again shows that we're pulling the sidewalks away from the roadway and this is a section without the median next slide this is a section with the median so effectively it's the cemetery on one side with where it's elevated above and then the homes that are to the to the right as you're looking at that down below and again that center median that you see there one thing to notice about this section is that we have a massive amount of right away through this year it was almost 100 feet i mentioned that becomes it becomes really relevant because that right away goes from about 94 feet down to closer to downtown which is 64 feet so we really run out of space which limits what we can do the further we get in next slide section three this is the one that isn't funded yet so that's mason and healy to red mile and this one has some pretty this is our largest section by far in terms of length and it also gives us some opportunities to to make some improvements but again is that that right away narrows down it we are limited next slide so what are we doing here some of the similar again we have the same problem with the old sidewalks being deteriorated and directly adjacent roadway and the curbs being in rough shape here we're not pulling five to seven feet away from the roadway with the sidewalks and we don't have room for bike lanes so what do we do well we use a shared use path on one side we scoot it out as far as we can replace some of the curbs do the full width paving again add a median island where we can for the same benefits as before next slide so here's kind of what that could look like and you can see that that right away there is only 72 feet instead of the 94 we had previously and effective what we do you can kind of see here that proposed versus existing we're basically shifting the right away over and why are we doing that that massive line of transmission lines that you see there. So in order to keep our costs down and to reduce the impact on that, we're effectively shifting the roadway over, narrowing lanes in order to afford us at least some separation from the roadway and again adding that eight-foot wide shared use path on the on the north side to provide a facility for bicycles. Next slide. Section four, here's where things start really getting narrow from Red Mile to Porter Place because again we start running out of room. We had 74 in the last and we'll see it here in a minute. I think we're down to 64 through this section. Next slide. So what can we do here? Well, we have the same problems that we had throughout, but the solutions get tighter and tighter. The curbs through here aren't as bad, so that's a good thing. But the fact that we run out of real estate means that sidewalk and shared use paths are no longer separated from the roadway. Next slide. You can Excuse me, director. Yes. You're out of time, but if there's a motion to extend, how much time would you need? Two minutes. I was talking as fast as I could. Any objections? Two minutes, sir. Okay. So you can see here, same transmission line problem. We're really close to the roadway. Not a lot we can do there. Next slide. Next slide. Next section is from Oliver Lewis Way. So same problems, same issues as the section four. Next slide. And this is what it looks like. You might recall from the planning study, there were trees and art and a lot of the things shown in the middle of the roadway. We took that out because it's never going to be allowed by KYTC. And frankly, we wouldn't want to put that on this bridge anyway. Next slide. Here's what it costs down to the brass tacks. You can see the total project cost is around $32 million. We would like to do the design first in order to potentially facilitate leveraging that towards some additional federal funding. and that cost is $4 million. Next slide. And here's our schedule. Design will take about 18 months for that. Right away utility, that gets a little fuzzier because we're in less control. And then finally construction will take probably two to four years for the entire thing, 12 to 18 months per section. That's it. That's it. There should be a questions when next. Thank you. There are questions or comments. Council Member Reynolds. Thank you, Vice Mayor, and thank you, Mr. Burton, for running through that quickly. I think you all are pretty familiar with this project by now. I just wanted to mention that a lot of time and money were put into creating the Versailles Road Multimodal Alternative Evaluation, the Cardinal Valley Small Area Plan, and the Versailles Road Corridor Study. And those plans have all been put on hold for a really long time. Today I just wanted to acknowledge a few people from the 11th district that came. So if you came and you live in the 11th district and you care about this project, if you could please raise your hand, I would appreciate that. All right, thank you. This corridor is, as I've mentioned a million times, our main way in and out of Lexington, in and out of downtown. The downtown that we've put so much time, energy, and money into. It's one of the most busiest roads for pedestrians and has one of the most, the highest ridership for LexTran. And it's going to have a brand new library on it and now a school campus. This implementation has been long delayed and a small section of the plan ending at Mason Healy was recently completed and it was the least expensive section. Now it's time to integrate the new intersection at Mason-Headley that will go in with the whole Versailles Road corridor plan. I don't think that the budget allocations for Mason-Headley, the Mason-Headley intersection, improvement should move forward fully without deliberation on the timing and the budget of the whole corridor. We should look at Mason-Headley and the intersection there and the design and how it interacts with the Versailles Road infrastructure and the improvement plan. The design for the corridor as a whole should be done this coming fiscal year. We need this design to leverage state federal funds and to be able to look at all of our funding mechanisms. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member McCurron. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Director, is this, with what's being proposed in the mayor's budget, how much of that will encompass this same concept as well? The sidewalks, is that going to have any part with that too? So you're referring to the Mason Healy? Yes sir. That's really only Mason Healy, that really won't touch Versailles Road. Okay, I didn't know if it came down to that, that was my only question, thank you. Thank you, Council Member Maloney. Council Member Reynolds echoed a lot of things that I want to say, but we just got through doing one section of Vassales Road, and we are put in the library, but also there's been some new businesses there. We've gotten a donut that really revitalized that area, and it has a huge impact. If you go down Vassales Road, I think it's one of the best projects we've seen. It's going entrance from the airport, entrance to Keeneland. but to me I am supportive of this because we need to send a message for the infrastructure money comes in here that this is our top priority to make sure we fix this Vassail's Road. It should have been done 40 years ago and as you all know there's the Hope Center for Women, Crystal's House now we're putting in the Section 8 housing project all in that area going back to what she said is the most used pedestrian walking way, but also other than UK, we're ranked number one on bus route for that Buccells Road. And this, it shows that it does work, and I ask you all, I mean, that we get this message sent, that we get this study to show and the design phase to show that when this infrastructure comes in, And I know you all got all kinds of important projects, and there are very important projects, but this has been on the table for many years. And when I was a council member, Peggy Henson, as you all know, Jennifer, this has to get done. And if you go to ask you all, and I assume you all have been down there, see the difference of what has happened on that development. They were just the sidewalks, and I want to commend you for that. The one on Vassels Road, and it has really done a tremendous job. and a lot of people using that walking. And that is the example we need to send all the way to Oliver Lewis Way because this is the gateway into Luttington, and it becomes back to the word safety. And there's a lot of people that have been hit by cars on Vassail's Road. There's nowhere to walk. And I myself many times have helped people in wheelchairs that cannot get on. They have to be going out in the street to get stuck on the sidewalk that we've had to go out and help them get out of the wheelchairs to get them back. So this should be a priority, so I appreciate what you've done there, Council Member Reynolds. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Bledsoe. Thank you, Vice Mayor, and thank you, Council Member Reynolds. You are a tireless advocate for your district, and I respect that. And I think that's your job, and you do a really good job doing it. And I just want to applaud you for your effort, because I think you've spent a lot of time trying to figure out how to find ways to fund projects and to push to make sure we don't forget about it. You're right, Councilman Henson was an advocate as well and continued to remind us the importance of our sales roads. We didn't forget it and it wasn't something that was left off the radar. So I really appreciate that. I have some questions for you, Director Burton, just about some timing and cost. So you said the Mason-Healey has nothing to do with this particular project. Correct. Is there any timing issue of why one needs to be done before the other or vice versa because of any impact to traffic flow or project development? Well, the Mason-Healy, when Fayette County plans to open up their schools at that new location, obviously we want to be done before that. We don't have an exact time on that, but we have a ballpark, which is why the money is in this year's budget. So we do need to get on that soonish. The more we delay that, the more we're pinched in terms of getting that done and constructed before they move in. So that's probably the biggest time constraint we have in all the funding. Okay. And then this is going to sound silly, but I feel like for $4 million for design, I should have been an engineer. Walk me through where $4 million is spent. Like how is that a $4 million project for design? So a lot of this is you've got a lot of you're going to survey the entire corridor. On top of that, a lot of this, because we're shifting the roadway, especially to bring you back up the last next to the last slide, A lot of that cost is in the first segment. One more, sorry. A lot of that cost is in the first segment, and because there, we're not just moving sidewalk here and there. We're shifting the entire roadway over, which means the existing drainage, we've got to completely redo. So there's a lot of hydraulics involved in that. And so those are probably the two biggest components. It requires a full survey, the entire corridor, and we've got to redo the drainage design on the entire corridor. So that's probably your two biggest challenges. Plus, because in that section, we're purchasing a lot of right-of-way, they have to provide right-of-way plans that we can then use for our right-of-way phase to purchase those properties. So it's more than just shifting the sidewalks out. That's quite a bit. And then for the balance of that 31, you're looking at, or the 28 construction costs, you said if you had design, you could leverage state resources for that. Well, that's always the goal, yeah. That is your goal, like through map funding or just from? whatever state allocation we could get right state federal you know we've we've got slx dollars the potential infrastructure funding there's always bill i mean there's there's tons of other stuff but uh someone mentioned earlier today i think shovel ready and that's popular term because it's easier for federal agencies to give folks money who are ready for construction because they know it's going to get done if you're not ready for construction they think well it could take five years and they don't have confidence in frankly you spending the money but if you have have it up to construction, at least close past design, they have more confidence in you actually spending the money and that's really what they want you to do. Otherwise, they just won't give it to you. Yeah, no, I completely agree. And that's exactly how you leverage state and federal funds to do so. Right. So, and this is just my holistic kind of piece of it. I would look at all of our corridors almost need something like this, maybe not to the extent for sales road does. I would think of Harrisburg roads, one of them. We have sidewalks needs expansion and needs some improvements there. You could probably go all the way around the circle and pick out how do we prioritize one corridor over another. And I'm just curious how you weigh, so we could think about how we weigh priorities in those, because this is a major investment of resources that, and I'm all for it. I'm not against the project. I'm just sort of how we weigh it, the timing of weighing this one versus other things in our community. A lot of that we work with the MPO staff and with council members to, through the transportation policy committee to figure out what's next and we try to not obviously you can't do every big 30 million dollar project at once so okay you do the design for this one where you're working on the right away for this one where you're working on the construction for this one so we try to stagger it for instance we're using some arpa funds for the harrisburg road quarter now for that shared use path so we're always trying to spread the wealth if you will but you you can't my old boss told me with enough dollars in dynamite i can do anything and we don't have enough dollars so we You have to shift them around, and that again means often shifting, working on one phase on one project while you're working on another so that you can keep that rotation and spend what you have. Thank you. My time is almost out. I appreciate that. I think it's a worthy project and a good investment. My question is just how do we do that holistic as a city and weigh that appropriately? And I think the infrastructure funds coming down may give us some opportunity to do that as well. Right. So, thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member James Brown. Thank you, Vice Mayor. And Council Member Bledsoe asked a lot of the same questions I was going to ask, so she got a lot of that cleared up. But what I really took from what you just said is that you have plenty of dynamite. You don't have enough money, but you got enough dynamite. Well, I guess that joke missed. All right, so. Yeah, yeah. All right, so, and I agree, Council Member Reynolds has been a strong advocate as well as Council Member Hidson for this roll way. And when I travel down it, I do see a lot of pedestrian traffic, a lot. And so there's no priority list that MPO has created to let us know where we need to be focusing on these projects. I mean, because if it wasn't for the continued advocacy of Council Member Reynolds, I mean, I don't know if this would be in front of us right now. I mean, so is there a list? There is. There's a five-year plan that we've developed with the MPO staff, with traffic engineering, with everybody, and with the Transportation Policy Committee. But that is a fiscally constrained five-year plan, and we get roughly $7 million of SLX dollars a year, which means we can program roughly $35 million over a five-year plan. We could add 15 more projects, but we'd have to have the money to cover those. So where does this project come in on that list? I don't know off the top of my head, to be honest. Typically, we have tried to, I say we, the government in general has tried to avoid spending SLX dollars on state routes because we rely on the state to spend that money on state routes. So good examples of heavy spends for SLX dollars are Clay's Mill. Our next big heavy spend is Liberty Road. So we work on our locally owned collector streets with SLX dollars a lot because, again, that's our money and those are our roads. whereas state roads such as for sales harrisburg etc we really champion the state to spend their money there so that we don't have to spend our local dollars okay so the the other point that got brought up is the i guess the sticker shock on the amount then that's just for design and not trying to chop up this project but maybe think about it in a way that's really that makes it more digestible is there any intersections that we can look at to the look at for design to break up to make it more palatable like from oliver lewis way to red mile road or is is there any way to prioritize it that way to you could but your biggest impact in both cost for design and construction is that first segment which is from mason healy to red mile so that's that's your heavy lift but it's also your biggest impact because that's where you're actually pulling the roadway sidewalk and shared use path away from the roadway for the longest stretch so So that section is $2.4 million, I think it about was. So that's a majority of your cost right there. So you could do just that segment. But if you were going to fund one end or the other, it would make sense to fund that segment first. Because then it connects to what we are finishing up now. And then you could keep it going to the next two segments. Okay. Well, I'll just say maybe that's one way we can look at it if it gets to a point where it just, you know, Because I'd hate to keep pushing this off and wait on the infrastructure money to come, because I think the need is there. And I think we all want to make it happen. It's just a big dollar amount on that project. So thank you. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you. Council Member Fred Brown. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Along those same lines, when we're talking about the MPO, we did discuss that at our meeting Wednesday. Right. And we've got several members here on the council that are on the MPO. So I think we want to get a discussion of this maybe at the next meeting or two. And what I would ask you, Director, is would this be a catalyst if we put this 4 million in there for everything to go forward to where we could move forward? It definitely could be. Again, it goes back to the question I think that Vice Mayor Kay has asked several times when we've asked for at SLX, by doing this, what do we not do? And I think that's a good question, because if we use SLX dollars on state routes and not on local roads. And the reason, one of the reasons, and I think this is long overdue, and I don't know why we haven't stepped that up in our priority listing through the MPO. So you're right, I mean, maybe with infrastructure money we'll be able to do all those other items too. But what prompted me looking at this a little bit more is the fact that the Mason-Healy and Bursells Road intersection there, it looks like we're going to be obligated to spend a couple million on that particular interchange. And if we're being forced to do that, it kind of changes my thinking on the priorities in the MPO. And if we do need to move some things around, I think we can. And so this project, I'm telling you, you know, think about what Vercels Road. You're bringing all the way from the airport and from Keeneland. You're coming all the way into Town Branch, University, I mean, and our Rupp Arena. It is a major corridor, and I'm really kind of surprised we haven't done more, I guess because of the cost. But, no, I think this is, if you're talking about any type of roadway project, we need to look at this seriously. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Baxter. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Dr. Burton, piggybacking off of what Council Member James Brown just said about doing it section by section, will it end up saving us money in the long run to design the entire section altogether? Will we end up spending more if we do it section by section? You always get economy of scale if you try to do everything at once, whether it be construction or design. the economy of scale is less so in design than it is construction, but it's still there. So, yes, unit cost per design, it would save you money to do it all at once. Because if we do it 2.4 versus 4, then we have to come back and do the other. It's going to be more than that 4 minus 2.4 because we may hire a new design firm, and they'll have to go do a new survey, et cetera, et cetera. So it will be cheaper, I say cheaper per unit cost, to do it all at once. More economical, I guess, is the word. Okay, thank you. And then Council Member Bledsoe made a good point about prioritizing these projects. You know, this is obviously a very important project that's been on the, you know, in the plans for a long time. And Council Member Fred Brown said that we had our NPO meeting yesterday, and we were talking about these priorities. We also learned that the Imagine Nicholasville Road project is taking its next step this fall. They will start the traffic study for that. So, yes, the priorities should be set to get this one completed so that when the Nicholasville Road stuff comes back and we have all of that information, we can then move forward with that corridor that I hope to fight as tirelessly for as Denver has for Sales Road. So I do think that this is a great project, and I thank you for bringing it forward. I think we do need to put in some serious considerations as we move forward. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Reynolds. Thank you, Vice Mayor, and I'll be brief. And thank you for all the comments from my colleagues. I really appreciate them and I appreciate the support. I just wanted to mention the funding a little bit. I know Councilmember Bledsoe mentioned funding. And so there's a lot of different ways that having this design done could leverage money. One is in the MPO, but with the MPO, this project has gone up and down on the list. It has been given points, it's gone up, it's gone down. And the last time I asked as to why it went down, I was told it was because it had too big of a price tag. Because they saw that 30 million and said, this is too much. And so my hope is if we can have a piece of that and do that, that maybe then we can get the ball rolling. But there's lots of options. There is infrastructure money that might be a possibility. And the raise grant, if we have this design done, then we can even ask for a raise grant next year. And that would be connecting what we're asking for now with that. So that's a possibility. And I also spoke with Congressman Barr and he said that he might have some options as well. Once again, doing the design really helps any of that come to fruition, so thank you. Great, thank you. I see no one else signed up to speak on this question. Next would be Council Member Lamb. Thank you, Vice Mayor, and thank you colleagues for allowing me to bring these two items to you. I will start with the Arboretum, and I don't know if you can put it, okay, thank you. For most of you all got to participate in the presentation that I had at the March 8th General Government Social Services Committee where Ms. Molly Davis, the Executive Director, came and presented an overview. But for those that weren't there, just so you know that the Arboretum was actually established in 1987 as an interlocal government agreement with the University of Kentucky and LFUCG as partnership. And most recently in 2014, we've had an amended agreement where we've actually established this 100 acres of land on UK's campus through 2086, not only for UK's use and for our community, but it's also an economic driver. And it is something that for new businesses that come to town, that it is nice to have a state-of-the-art, wonderful arboretum facility and with the new visitor center. I also want you to know that I know the mayor put in $200,000 in her budget, which I really appreciated. And I am going to ask that you all further ask for an additional $300,000. They have been raising money for a $3 million goal for the Arboretum to expand the door at the Oates Visitor Center. And I just feel like that this will be the push that is going to get them to the next level and that they will be able to start this project. Another little piece of history, the Arboretum funding sources from 1984 to 2019, LFUCG has committed and given in excess of $1.6 million, basically, compared to the other entities that used to be Friends of the Arboretum, and there's UK Cafe, and then the UK PPD. And then there were some other sources. They are working through the philanthropy over at UK to raise sources for this, but we have not given a large chunk of funding for the Arboretum to further its goals for our community because, again, this is for everybody in our community to get to go and visit. It's open to the public. And I wanted to tell you that most recently the Kentucky Children's Garden has received a conservation and education grant that's going to build and promote the tiny things play a large role in the ecosystem. and it's exhibited at the Kentucky Children's Garden and it's adding a butterfly enclosure, a wall-mounted ant farm, three insect terrariums, four mushroom kits, supplies to construct a moss terrarium, and a clue of worms for composting. These are all things that they're working toward. They're working toward really expanding and encouraging more schools to come to the Kentucky Children's Garden. There will be a nice facility, indoor and outdoor, at the new expanded and renovated visitor center for many different educational opportunities as well as public opportunities. So it is my hope that we will strongly consider, as we have since 1984, where we have been a partnership with the Arboretum, and I'm hoping that we can make this a one-time gift to help them further their project for our community and for our economic development. Thank you. Thank you. Questions, Councilmembers? Councilmember Legree. Thank you, Vice Mayor, and thank you, Council Member Lamb, for bringing this forward. I just have, you know, I love the Arboretum, and I'm really excited about the new visitor's center. I'm not sure if you're able to answer this question, but just thinking about their goal and about the set-aside from the mayor, do you have a sense of how much they've raised so far? Yes, that is a very, may I answer? Okay. The University of Kentucky has raised $1.5 million in excess of $1.5. Their goal is $3 million, so that's what they've raised to this point. Okay, thank you. I appreciate that. Thank you. Nobody else signed up, so we can move to the second item. Council Member Lamb. Thank you again, and again, thank you, colleagues, for allowing me to present on this. First and foremost, I want to make sure that everybody understands that this is not a recurring ask. I know that you might look at this and you see this for some positions in here. This is a one-time ask, and I want to make sure that that is clear. we also had a presentation at our april 12th general government social services committee that a newly revised board of directors for the lexington history museum has brought forward a strategic plan and they are working very hard to get the feet off the ground and get moving Some of you might know that back in 1997, we started out with trying to start a history museum. And then through Pam Miller in 1998, we actually incorporated and set into place the Articles of Incorporation for the Lexington History Museum. And back then, we did dedicate, there was a memorandum of understanding with the Lexington Fayette-Urban County government and the Commonwealth of Kentucky to commit $1 million to the History Museum through converting our Fayette County courthouse. We placed them in that courthouse, and then the courthouse further deteriorated, and they had no home. And I feel strongly that this government and this council could really make a huge change for the next three years to give the History Museum an opportunity to move forward with their newly found strategic plan, which is really robust. And I hope that if you haven't had a chance to watch the April 12th presentation at General Government General Services, it is really important to understand what they've gone through. And I sat through a full day of a board retreat with the History Museum so that I could understand and I feel confident that they are committed with their newly found board to moving forward with this and to really making it a state-of-the-art local history museum for Lexington and for everybody. It's as important as our Explorium is. We have visitors that come here that want to visit and learn about Lexington's history, and I am hopeful and I am very supportive of moving this forward with them, and I will stay in touch with them and help them in any way possible. We do have some potential sites, but unfortunately it's not something that we can speak publicly about yet because there's a lot of considerations out there. But if this council would be willing to move forward and give this three-year opportunity, then the History Museum Board of Directors will have the opportunity to set in forth a campaign and to be able to move forward. And if we start out with a temporary museum, then so be it that we start out with a temporary museum. If we're lucky enough to find the absolute space that is perfect for making it a permanent solution, then I hope that we can do that because that would be a better deal and less money involved. So it is my hope that you all will be able to strongly support this. And it's sad with Lexington being the size it is, and we do not have our history museum here in Lexington. And I pray that we can make this one commitment, and I feel strongly that with the new board and with the enthusiasm with that board, that they can make this happen. And I hope that you all will be able to support this. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Plowman. Thank you, Vice Mayor. And I, too, just wanted to chime in on Council Member Lambs. You all know that we've been kind of beating that drum now for years. And I also went to that retreat, and the momentum is there, and the board is poised. This is a really big opportunity, not just for the History Museum, but for our community, probably one of the most richest cities that hit with our history, to have a home for the artifacts that span since our beginning of our city. So, again, I just wanted to concur and hope that you all will give your serious consideration when the motion is made. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember McCurron. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Councilmember Lamb, thank you for bringing this forward. I know the board has been working tirelessly to see an opportunity moving forward. And I mean, for the past several years, they've been trying to find a home. And this is an opportunity to give them a three-year investment that they can look forward to their future. I appreciate you looking forward to that. And I agree with you that Lexington of our size, we need a history museum here and a stable home for them. Thank you. Thank you. I see no one else signed up to speak. I think the question now, it is 526. We have a meeting at 6. You want to take one more item or should we? The presentation may be short. One more. I think it's easy to reckon. Yeah. Sure. Council Member Maloney. Thank you. Mine's not going to be pretty. It's not attractive, but it's a one time money. And as you know, we sit here with our public safety. We're short 100 in jail, over 100 in jail, 100 in a police department, and 30 in our 911. I thought out of the box maybe we should try to keep people here a little bit longer. We know a lot of people getting to retire. If we can keep them another year and give them a bonus for saying so we can't get these numbers any lower, and it's a one-time fee, we need those experienced people here, and that's why I request an idea that we keep helping the numbers so the officers can go out and recruit. I mean, 911 can recruit and the jail can recruit. And if that keeps us, if we can keep the numbers stable, that's one way I'm trying to be. But a lot of these people are going to retire and if we can show them ahead, but if they can say another year, we can give them a bonus. So that's why, mine's not fancy, but it's one time money and we do have a serious crisis and it's an idea. Thank you. Thank you. Council members, questions? Council member Fred Brown. Thank you Vice Mayor. This is something that's come up before because I know I asked the administration and even in the police department about what we could do to do some retain the police officers, even bring back retired police officers or whatever. And I think the static I got was, Council Member, it was the union contract. I don't know that, and I'd like to at least have some information there if there's any blockage from that. I'd be glad to answer that. I'm not bringing people back. I'm trying to keep them here. A lot of people with spirits are going to retire in the next few months, and if they're willing to say another year that the administration finds out for some kind of bonus that they can get, that's something that I was pushing for. I don't think we can bring people back. I agree with you. I'm trying to keep them here as long as we can so we can get people to recruit and try to keep the numbers to catch up. My question is, can we do it under the contractual thing? I would say you could. That's a legal question. We just gave them $5,000 bonuses, so I don't see why we couldn't. Would you want to? Yes, let's have legal inform us. Welcome, Mr. Bobbery. Good afternoon. So in any situation where you have a union contract and you're talking about wages, you're legally required to negotiate it in order to avoid an unfair labor practice. That being said, I would suspect that there wouldn't be a whole lot of pushback if you're going to unilaterally provide some sort of benefit, but it does require you to have the union sign off on getting it. Thank you. Any other questions, comments? Seeing none, I think we'll call a halt. We are scheduled to continue this May 5th at 430. Unless there's other business to come before us, Council Member Fred Brown. Vice Mayor, we have a total listing and we're not getting through all of it, 58 million that's on this listing that we're supposed to have presented. Correct. I guess the point of order is I would like for us to consider the 12 million plus that the mayor had in her budget that she took out of stabilization for us to replenish this total dollar amount but add her amounts and allow the administration to talk about their particular item. I don't know if I need a motion or? My understanding is that since that budget amendment is postponed, that all of the money that's in budget stabilization is now on the table for consideration. And that we would add the requests that the mayor had for budget stabilization money to our list. Right, and allow them to- When we get to the final stage of- Okay, well I didn't know I thought you'd bring that out. Council Member Bledsoe? Sure, I'm just going to add, of course, all of those, you could put any items in different categories, in different buckets, so all the items will be considered during the link process as well, regardless of their funding source. So if it's a capital EQ project, and it happens to be funded from, I'm just making this up, from the budget stabilization, it would be considered in the EQ bucket during budget links as well. So there'll be recommendations from the links as well as individual council members. Yes. Yeah, but yes, that money, unless anybody- Vice Mayor, can you repeat when our next meeting will be to see the- It's been scheduled already. It's on our calendar, May 5th, 430. May 5th at 430. Okay, I just wanted to double check that. So once again, any further business? I'll entertain a motion to adjourn. So moved. I have a motion and a second. Without objection, we stand adjourned.